Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Whacker]

I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.

Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.

I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.

I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.

All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.

Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.

I most respectfully do not agree. I do not see this as part of a "homosexual agenda" to have other's lifestyle's socially accepted. Perhaps it is a case of a few ruining it for the many, but my overall perceptions and in talking to my gay and lesbian friends gets me the same response, every time. It's about being able to have the same rights and privileges under the law for things such as inheritance, family matters, healthcare, and the myriad other things that we all take for granted. And no, these are not things that can be easily fixed with available legal instruments, nor should they in my opinion when the law should treat all equally.

As for the religious aspects, I could give less than a crap. There's a reason for separation of church and state. Withholding the same right to a "civil union" is wrong. How the churches deal with this, I don't give a hoot, nor is that a legal or civil matter at all and the religious institutions should be free to view it however they please.

[Megas Methuselah]

Is Beskar tryna hit on me?

[Beskar]

Is Beskar tryna hit on me?

Depends on if you are secretly Pocahontas, or not.

[Megas Methuselah]

Big Sav has a song called "Pocahontas."

[Crazed Rabbit]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

CR

Probably being qualified as an impartial Judge and having access to/utilizing during his deliberations sociology texts/doctorates detailing the changes in American society since the 1960s makes him a better shall we say...judge on the role of genders in America then 7 million Christians (not even close a majority of Californians who number around 37 million) shouting "JESUS SAYS MAN AND WOMAN, THAT'S HOW IT IS!"

[Askthepizzaguy]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

A relief, considering that some people are born intersexed and have genetic aspects of one gender (or both, or even other combinations) while having the physiological aspects of another. If a person found out his wife was sterile because she was born with a genetic difference that made her that way, and is in all other respects female, but her genetics are atypical and not technically female, I would object to someone suggesting that their marriage should be made null and void.

Clearly if gender shouldn't be a defining part of marriage, then... it shouldn't be a defining part of marriage.

Some with ambiguous genders ask for or are given gender assignment surgery. Gender is clearly not binary concept, nor is it always a clear concept. Of course, these concepts are usually uncomfortable for people to talk about, and the people affected are a very small minority. In my view, the numbers don't matter, and democracy isn't always correct. Popular opinion does not always make right. To be consistent, we cannot suggest that gender is an absolute, defining aspect of marriage. Nor should genetics be.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

If he had made a ruling more in line with your viewpoint, I doubt you'd be suggesting he had no authority here. The role of a judge is not to rule in favor of whatever is popular.

What might make him better to decide Constitutional matters than the voting public, is that certain Constitutional rights CANNOT be infringed by the vote. It says so right in the Constitution itself. That means that certain unalienable rights cannot be taken away by the vote, and can be protected by those whose training and qualifications and held offices qualify them to rule on matters of constitutionality. If a voting majority passed a proposition stating that women didn't have a right to own cars, a judge could overturn that by ruling it unconstitutional, because of this matter of settled Constitutional law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So when people make law by the vote which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States, depriving them of due process, and equal protection and treatment under the law, that means they've made a bad, unconstitutional law. The judge in this case was upholding a key principle of the Constitution, that all men are created equal, and they deserve equal treatment, even if the majority does not agree.



Like I said, if the judge ruled in a different manner, favoring the other side, I would not be hearing one peep about whether or not he had the right and duty to rule on this matter.